About your Search

20140226
20140306
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
appalling to hear a dialogue that talks about using religion to discriminate against both myself and my community. you know, when i was in high sdoo school, i was actually assaulted because i was gay. as a result, i spent most of my life down playing the fact. you know, i don't ride in pride parades and i don't really wear it on my cuff, but i really feel compelled to really put it out there. you know, i don't think that we deserve a bill like this anywhere in this country. >> joining me now, damian klinko, the arizona state representative you just heard from and washington post columnist jonathan capehart. what made you speak about the bill the way you did, using your own personal reference, which as you said is not something that you are inclined to do. >> i used my own story because this is a personal attack against me and everyone in the lgbt community in the state of arizona. the community doesn't deserve this sort of treatment. and i don't think there's ever an excuse that we should sanction discrimination against a minority group. it makes me sad and disappointed in a state that
on the table in states across the country. here's the meat of 1062 in arizona. "exercise of religion means the practice of or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." here is hb 376 in ohio. "exercise of religion means the practice or observance of religion. it includes but is not limited to the ability to act or the refusal to act in a manner that is substantially motivated by one's sincerely held religious belief, whether or not it's central to a larger system of larger belief." it's almost identical language, and that's no accident. sb 1062 and hb 376 and legislation in other states all share the same legal genetic code traceable back to a number of christian conservative special interest groups in the case of 1062, an outfit called the center for arizona policy, another called the alliance defending freedom didn't just push for the bill they also helped write for the bill much that's what representatives fr
was a homosexual. not true. you couldn't do that. there's no basis for that in religion. we're talking about marriages, about those ceremonies that really when you participate in them as described in the package about being artistic, you're affirming of something that runs counter to your religious beliefs. >> you're saying i can't ban -- i have the bill in front of me two pages for me saying you can do this if the person's refusal to act is motivated by religious belief. you're saying to me if i'm -- someone could ban me from coming in if i was married to another woman but not if i was simply a lesbian and not married to the woman? it's gay marriage that's your problem? >> that is -- it sets in place this has to be a religious belief that is deeply held and you can't just come up and create a religion. you can't come up and say, i'm not going to serve somebody this food and that would be inconsistent with a christian world view. christians want to serve people. where the issue is, and this is what happened in new mexico, what drove this was that you had a christian photography company that
not of religion, necessarily, but of money and money matters and talks. you know that. >> absolutely. i see this as a business story. anyway, we appreciate your story very much. free market capitalism, it's blind to things like race, religion, color, gender and sexuality. that's the economics of it. while i have enormous respect for religious freedom and beliefs, i just don't see this as the key issue in the discussion. that's why i think governor jan brewer should veto what really amounts to a gay discrimination bill and an anti-business bill as well. but many people disagree with me. here now to discuss outgoing business insider, politics editor, josh bare row and we welcome kathy, senior fellow at the family research council and spokesperson for the u.s. catholic bishops. kathy, let me begin with you. you're talking to a pro life catholic. you probably know that. >> i do. >> on this one, i think the capitalist free market principles quite frankly trumped the religious issues. tell me why you disagree. >> this is the same balancing test that ted kennedy and chuck schumer voted into federa
at this bill, didn't hear one example of where someone had been discriminated against because of their religion so she didn't think the bill made sense. your organization released a statement today that read "this legislation would give homosexuals more protection than they did under the current law". given nobody could come up with example of the discrimination, how could they have more protection under a law essentially created to allow people who didn't want to serve gays getting married with things like photography or wedding cakes? >> well, the irony is that arizona does not currently have sexual orientation listed as a protected category in either their employment nondiscrimination laws or public accommodation laws. so the current state of the law in arizona is that anybody can discriminate against gays at any time for any reason or for no reason whatsoever. this bill deals only with when a government action conflicts with a person's sincerely held religious belief. it requires the person asserting that right to be able to prove that this is motivated by the religious belief, that that be
with her if she could come up with one single example of discrimination based on religion in arizona that people of faith have suffered through. she couldn't come up with one other than hypotheticals that maybe might happen. but she had no actual example of it actually having occurred. that's interesting because governor brewer specifically pointed that out. i want to play some of that exchange we had with nancy barta, one of the authors of s b 1062. >> senator, do you have any actual example of someone in arizona being forced to do something against their religious beliefs? >> well, in arizona it could be happening all the time, yes. >> do you have an actual example? >> well, surely. people may be being asked to -- >> i mean where it's actually happened. >> well, obviously if people aren't bringing it to court we don't know about it at this point. but we do know that without this law, people would not be able to defend themselves in court. >> but again, you can't name actually one example where this has happened. because people opposed to this say look, this is a problem -- this is
religion has the most force. the courts are like the worst place in order to try to get a religious belief codified or encoded into law. because the way in which the supreme court. >> you have to have a secular purpose for the law. when religious right was on the offense, what it did was to use a ballot initiative. everyone goes into the voting booth and votes their religious convictions. you can't second guess that. now that those statutes have become to be struck down by the courts, giving us secular reasons. now that they're playing defense, what the religious right is doing is saying, let's rely on the free exercise clause in order to allow individuals to sort these claims in court. in some ways, arizona was the easiest case, she showed no evidence of religious discrimination against businesses. land of legal, gay rights organization told me today they had received almost 500 complaints over the past four years about lgbt discrimination in arizona. >> which is legal. >> it starts to feel like, you hurt my fist when i hit your face argument. but i think as we move to other states, that
provides that, quote, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion explicitly expanding that protection to allow businesses to cite a violation of their own religious beliefs as a defense if they're sued for failing to provide service. the bill was inspired by a new mexico supreme court ruling against a wedding photographer who refused service to a same-sex couple, and it massed quickly through the very conservative-controlled state legislature in arizona last week. in the last few days, pressure on brewer to veto the bill has grown from almost every corner. the arizona story crossed the threshold from political feeding frenzy into the mainstream. it was showing up on every platform yesterday, from espn to late-night talk shows. and though brewer claimed she was not influenced by cheers and boos from the crowd, it was clear from the outset that her state, whose reputation has already been tarnished over the years in the wake of the state's 2010 immigration law, had a lot to lose. on wednesday, the nfl, quote, began investigating the necessary steps to move next
, and they agree on this. that is sort of the old school, old time religion message. whatever societal problems you think are holding you back, it's not an excuse for you to is a advance. it really irritates a lot of young black men who say you're blaming the victim and you're saying you're putting all the burden on them to ignore all of these social ills that are real and not dealing with the social ills themselves. it's something that the president's critics don't like. but the interesting thing about president obama is that he knows that. he is actively engaging those critics. and he is pushing back. and he really wants them to agree with him that this is the right message to send to young black men. and you get the sense that this is a president who doesn't want to leave office not having given this message to young men, not having been a physical, living example of what he wants them to aspire to. he is a this aspirational politics is his core. that's his kansas grandmother talking to him. his upbringing with by his grandparents is what you hear. and he really does believe it. >> let's listen
, what they want to do. either as an individual or a nation. the monotheistic religions of the world all push its members to fight against poverty. but right now the united states of america, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting what the rich don't take with them. >> congressman emanuel cleaver and sister simone campbell, i'm going to have to leave it there. thank you both for your time tonight. >> thank you, reverend. >> good to be here. >>> still ahead, a top democrat calls out republicans for their dependence on billionaire koch brothers. >>> but first, new surveillance video of a deadly shooting inside a walmart. one man is dead and the shooter has not been arrested. we'll talk about it next. covert ops? double agents? spy thriller? you don't know "aarp" thanks to the aarp tek program, this guy is spying on his new grandson. aarp tek gets people better connected to technology, to better connect with each other. with social media, digital devices and apps. if you don't think "hashtag love dad" when you think aarp, then you don't know "aarp" find more surprising possib
is going to cause discrimination based upon religion in arizona. i scoffed at that until tonight. when a muslim waiter serving up here walked up to sheriff joe, wouldn't give him his dinner because he says i don't serve slime. >> reporter: he was a supporter of the immigration law in 2010. he declined to speak with cnn said the statements i maid were satirical comedy. did this roast go too far? >> it was a roast. john kavanaugh is my friend. he's not a racist. there's a double standard around here. everybody is talking about him. what about the activists and these civil rights that call mena decide and hitler. why isn't there an uproar about calling me every name in the book. why are they worried about some roast? >> yes. all right. coming up next on "new day" -- it does matter when you tell jokes. coming up next on "new day" sure it's an honor being nominated but there are no losers on oscar night. wait until you see what the stars will be going home with in those gift bags. i got to go back to hollywood. >> i'm sure they will report them on their taxes. ♪ honestly? i wanted a smart
whatever you want with your religion. you don't want to marry a man don't marry a man but don't put your hangups, whatever it is you have, you can't put it on other people. even jan brewer there's no way she'll not veto this thing. >> is certainly looks like she'll veto it. >> i want to see the guys that wrote this bill. where are they from? where have they been hiding? >> hold on. i would not paint an entire party with the same brush at all because it's totally, they're totally separate. >> where are you going with this now? >> you know where i'm going with it. >> with the only people happy about the mixed race commercial were republicans? >> no. >> if you look at the party plank the same points you pointed out to eric cantor, wait a second, why don't you recognize same-sex marriage. >> the far right, they're trying to just like obama cobbled together a coalition of different interests the far right is afraid to go against the deeply religious whatever. >> and democrats were in the same position until the president came out and said that he had changed his mind about it. this is a recen
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12